Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

James Morgan Tindall v. United States

James Morgan Tindall v. United States, 469 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1972)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-10-31
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: The district court denied Tindall’s motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. We affirm. While serving a sentence in the Florida state penitentiary upon a state conviction, Tindall was convicted in federal court on his plea of guilty of two counts of interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles and one count of escape from federal custody. He was sentenced to a total of 6 years imprisonment. In his motion to vacate filed below Tindall contended that his guilty plea was made without knowledge of the consequence of the plea.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed James Morgan Tindall v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
26 opinions
TINDALL v. UNITED STATES,469 F.2d 92(5th Cir. 1972)
JAMES MORGAN TINDALL, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
RESPONDENT-APPELLEE.
No. 72-2587.
Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
October 31, 1972.
James Morgan Tindall, pro se.

John W. Stokes, U.S. Atty., E. Ray Taylor, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for respondent-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Before BELL, and DYER, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] The district court denied Tindall's motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. We affirm.

[2] While serving a sentence in the Florida state penitentiary upon a state conviction, Tindall was convicted in federal court on his plea of guilty of two counts of interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles and one count of escape from federal custody. He was sentenced to a total of 6 years imprisonment.

[3] In his motion to vacate filed below Tindall contended that his guilty plea was made without knowledge of the consequence of the plea. He alleged that he was not advised by the trial court that his federal sentence would not commence on the date imposed but would follow his state sentence. He further alleged that his court appointed counsel had led him to believe that he would immediately begin service of his federal sentence.

[4] Rule11, F.R.Crim.P., requires the trial judge, before accepting a guilty plea, to advise the defendant of the maximum sentence possible. However, there is "no requirement to advise a defendant of every `but for' consequence which follows from a plea of guilty." Trujillo v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969,377 F.2d 266, cert. denied389 U.S. 899,88 S.Ct. 224,19 L.Ed.2d 221(ineligibility for parole); Ladner v. Henderson, 5 Cir. 1971,438 F.2d 638(loss of good time); United States v. Offen, 5 Cir. 1971,439 F.2d 1079(loss of rights of citizenship);see alsoTaylor v. United States, 5 Cir. 1971,452 F.2d 646; French v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969,408 F.2d 1027. In this case the trial court clearly advisedPage 93Tindall of the maximum sentences possible and carefully questioned him to determine that his pleas were completely voluntary. The district court fulfilled the requirement of Rule 11.

[5] Affirmed.Page 148
  1. Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I. ↩